Google and France: Whoa, Will Googlers Put That Trip to Provence on Hold?
July 13, 2021
Many news sources reported that the French government has put a price tag on Google’s content frivolities. The fine is in the neighborhood of $600 million. To put this in perspective, Google generates about $600 million a day in revenue, so no big deal.
CNBC’s “Google Hit with Record $593 Million Fine in France over News Copyright Battle” reports:
Google was ordered to present an offer of remuneration to publishers within two months, or risk facing fines of up to 900,000 euros per day.
From a practical point of view, Google will work out a plan. The plan will be discussed over numerous two-hour lunches, and then revised if warranted. If agreement is not reached, Google will seek redress in an appropriate manner. Google could write a check, threaten Apple-style to pull out of the country, or embrace the fascinating French legal system. Keep in mind that red tape is allegedly an invention of the Spanish has been a favorite method in France for centuries.
I found the Russian viewpoint interesting. “France slaps Google with Biggest Fine Ever of €500 Million for Failing to Comply with Copyright Rules” states:
The US company expressed upset at the French authority’s decision in a statement: “We have acted in good faith during the entire negotiation period. This fine does not reflect the efforts put in place, nor the reality of the use of news content on our platform.” The battle between Google and French publishers, including Agence France-Presse, has been going on since early 2020. Despite Google claiming that it has acted appropriately, French publishers insist that the company has used copyrighted articles and images without fairly paying the original authors under the EU “neighboring rights” rule. In February, Google was forced to pay out $76 million dollars to 121 French news outlets, with $22 million to be paid annually over three years.
The French fine might encourage other European Union entities to take a harder line with regard to what Google has been doing for the last 20 years. If that happens, the fines might consume a week or two of Google’s revenue. This begs the question, “What’s the point?” Either regulators take action that incentivizes different behavior at Google or just use the money, buy a good Beaujolais, rent a super yacht, and cruise to Antarctica to look at the big penguins.
Stephen E Arnold, July 13, 2021
Apple Threatens the UK?
July 12, 2021
Apple is a friendly company. It cares about security and privacy. It wants to hobble other technopolies with its user-centric approach ad tracking. Apple wants the Apple app store to be the bestest place in the world for developers to make their products available (even if some of those products don’t work as advertised) to the Apple customers. There are so many goodnesses associated with Apple, this headline has to be a misunderstanding: “Apple Attorneys Threaten UK Market Exit If Court Orders Unacceptable Patent Fees.”
It seems clear that the word “threat” is a strong one. The notion that “fees” might dissuade a trillion dollar company is puzzling. The write up reports:
Apple’s lawyers have warned the iPhone maker could exit the UK if a court orders it to pay “commercially unacceptable” fees to patent company Optis Cellular over alleged infringement of 3G and 4G patents. Apple is currently involved in a lawsuit with Optis in the United Kingdom, with Apple refusing to pay the firm license fees for patents Optis claims it used in the iPhone and other technologies. In June, a High Court judge ruled that Apple had infringed two of the patents, and therefore Apple should pay fees.
There are some strong words in this paragraph; for example, infringement, refusing, and High Court judge ruled.
Apple?
Yes, and the write up adds:
This is not the only lawsuit involving Optis that Apple is contending with. In August 2020, a Texas federal jury ruled Apple willfully infringed on 4G LTE patents owned by PanOptis and related companies, including Optis, and that it had to pay $506.2 million. In April 2021, a federal judge allowed a retrial to take place, due to there being “serious doubt” about the verdict.
Does this suggest that Apple is unaware of the function of a patent? Does Apple not understand the laws and customs associated with an inventor who holds a patent?
Possibly.
Several observations are warranted:
- If Apple pulls out of the UK, this might be good news for Samsung, Google, and other vendors of non-Apple mobile phones.
- The idea of a large company threatening a country and its laws is interesting. It may suggest that Apple is tired of mere nation states interfering with its plans to deliver Apple goodness to more people than ever before.
- Since Brexit, the UK lacks pull with other Western European countries. As a result, Britain is to blame for this threat.
This is an interesting posture and one that may be little more than saber rattling. On the other hand, no more Facetime in merrie olde Englande may be a reality for an island nation which has faced invaders, pillagers, and cut purses many times. Where is King Arthur when he’s needed? Merlin uses an iPhone I believe.
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2021
Commercial Accidental Censorship: Legal Blogs
July 12, 2021
Printed law journals are going the way of the printed newspaper, and legal blogs are taking their place. Kevin O’Keefe, LexBlog founder and host of Real Lawyers Have Blogs, is concerned that the ephemeral nature of blog posts poses a real problem for the law field. In his succinct post, “Where Will All the Legal Blogs Go?” he notes when a lawyer leaves a firm their posts are usually either deleted or recredited to the firm itself. We learn:
“Courts are more apt to cite blogs than a law review or law journal. As the New York Times has written on a couple occasions, law reviews are becoming largely irrelevant. Citations will lead to broken links. Legal blogs play a significant role in legal research. Lawyers looking for information on a subject turn to Google and find helpful blog posts. Law is for the long term. Lawyers use law from years ago. Law is advanced by dialogue and writing on the law. You eliminate the long term and a useable dialogue and writing on the law, and you have a problem.”
Yes, citations to nowhere are of no use to anyone, and posts credited to a firm rather than an individual become cannot be referenced, cited, or footnoted. The remedy, O’Keefe insists, is that legal blogs be aggregated, archived, and made accessible. Will his fellow legal bloggers listen?
Are Reed Elsevier and Thomson Reuters failing its legal users?
Cynthia Murrell, July 12, 2021
Audacity: Audacious or Not?
July 5, 2021
I found this notice interesting: “Audacity Desktop App.” Audacity is an audio software. One can record a podcast and remove unwanted background noise. It has many other tricks, not the least of which was that it was free and open source. There is an interesting back-and-forth on Reddit about who has rights to Audacity the application, the licenses under which the software has been provided, and nuances about music which elude me.
But there was an interesting passage in the Audacity Web page at this location about the type of data collected by the app and the organization with some ownership and development claims to the Audacity product; to wit:
Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities’ requests (if any).
My hunch is that music or audio banditos relying on Audacity may react to this explanation of data collected by the software. And for those living in California assuming that its Consumer Privacy Act offers a shield. Audacity says:
The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) provides California residents, referred to in the law as “consumers,” with rights to receive certain disclosures regarding the collection, use, and sharing of personal information, as well as rights to access and control personal information. Certain information that we collect may be exempt from the CCPA because it is considered public information (because it is made available by a government entity) or covered by another federal privacy law, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
What other open source software products, systems, and components will capture interesting information to be able to comply with rules and regulations in the jurisdictions in which the products are “used”?
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2021
Restraining Strategic Tech Acquisitions in the EU
June 18, 2021
Anti-big-tech or anti-American? Is there a difference? The Macau News Agency reports, “Germany, France Want to Curb ‘Killer’ Big Tech Deals.” Left out of the headline is the Netherlands, which joins those larger powers in their desire to stop companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon from making “killer acquisitions.” These are deals in which tech giants snap up budding startups before they can bloom into competitors. We learn:
“EU regulators believe that Facebook’s buyouts of Instagram or WhatsApp, or Google’s purchase of Fitbit, are potential examples of big companies buying out a high-potential startup before it developed into a rival. The EU ministers were discussing the Digital Markets Act, a law being hammered out at European Parliament and among the 27 member states that will take years to come into force. It would create a list of special rules for the handful of big technology companies on how they can operate, including stricter obligations on informing regulators of their buyouts and mergers. At the meeting, EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager insisted that existing rules already offered ways to intervene quickly against such buyouts when they are notified by national authorities. This was the case most recently with Facebook’s acquisition of software provider Kustomer even though that deal is below the EU’s thresholds for notification. The ministers also discussed the Digital Services Act that could force Big Tech into providing more transparency on algorithms and better policing of illegal content.”
The EU currently abides by the country-of-origin principle, wherein the country in which a company’s European operation is based handles enforcement. However, since it feels Ireland bungled the oversight of big tech firms, France suggests the EU re-evaluate that principle. The specific rules it will propose remain to be seen.
Cynthia Murrell, June 18, 2021
Great Moments in PR: Google and France June 2021
June 14, 2021
I am not sure what percentage of Alphabet Google’s annual revenue $268 million represents. My old handheld calculator balks at lots of numbers. I am more of a 00 or 000 kind of old timer. France believes that this figure is fair and appropriate for alleged missteps by the mom and pop online ad company.
I found the article “Google to Improve Ad Practices after Being Slapped with $268 Million Fine” interesting. In fact, I circled in True Blue this passage:
Following the results of this investigation, Google has decided to reach a settlement with the French antitrust authority. As a part of this settlement, the tech giant will have to improve its ad services to offer better interoperability with other platforms, and will also pay a $268 million fine.
Yep, the do better assurance. What was the alleged saying bandied about when Messrs. Brin and Page were roller blading around the Mountain View offices? I think it was this one:
It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.
A slight edit yields:
It’s easier to pay the find than make specific commitments.
Stephen E Arnold, June 14, 2021
The Country Russia and the Company Google: Fair Fight?
May 25, 2021
Sergey Brin’s flight to space did not blast off. Now it seems that Google’s business is mired in a mere nation state’s regulatory bureaucracy. What’s galactic Google to do when a country refuses to be Googley? “Russia Orders Google to Delete Illegal Content or Face Slowdowns” states that Russia’s:
Roskomnadzor internet commission gave the company 24 hours to delete more than 26,000 instances of what it’s classifying as illegal content. If Google doesn’t comply with the order, it could face fines valued at up to 10 percent of its annual revenue, in addition to seeing its services slowed down within the country. The agency has also accused Google of censoring Russian media outlets, including state-owned entities like RT and Sputnik.
Google played a mean game of Boogalah in Australia. I am not sure which combatant triumphed. The upcoming content with the Bear may be more challenging than tossing around a ball covered in kangaroo skin. Hockey and vodka drinking are among the more popular sports in Yakutsk I have heard.
Will Sundar Pichai travel to Russia and perhaps bond with Mr. Putin when he goes camping or horse back riding? I can visualize the two bonding over a camp fire or enjoying a ride about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.
The article explains that Russia has been less than thrilled with some US high technology companies. Furthermore, the country’s government remains squarely focused on earth and has not been willing to kneel before outfits which are galactic.
Getting into a dust up with Russia might be a reason to hire someone to check food deliveries to the Googleplex.
Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2021
Speak Using Our Words, Or Do Not Speak
May 14, 2021
Google has learned from legal misfortune, both its own and other companies’. That is why, “To Head Off Regulators, Google Makes Certain Words Taboo.” The Next Web post outlines several of the major antitrust investigations the company currently faces at home and abroad. It also describes the role language played in past lawsuits brought against Google and, notably, Microsoft. We learn employees are given specific instructions on their language and other parts of communication both inside and outside the company. Having acquired some internal documents, the journalist known as The Markup writes:
“The taboo words include ‘market,’ ‘barriers to entry,’ and ‘network effects,’ which is when products such as social networks become more valuable as more people use them. ‘Words matter. Especially in antitrust law,’ reads one document titled Five Rules of Thumb for Written Communications. ‘Alphabet gets sued a lot, and we have our fair share of regulatory investigations,’ reads another. ‘Assume every document will become public.’ The internal documents appear to be part of a self-guided training session for a wide range of the company’s more than 100,000 employees, from engineers to salespeople. One document, titled ‘Global Competition Policy,’ says it applies not only to interns and employees but also to temps, vendors, and contractors. The documents explain the basics of antitrust law and caution against loose talk that could have implications for government regulators or private lawsuits. In one of the documents, which appear to be written by the legal team, employees are advised to choose their words carefully and use only third-party data when referencing Google’s ‘position in search’ in sales pitches. They are further cautioned never to print or hand out their slides.”
The documents helpfully suggest alternative words, including “industry,” “space,” “area,” or the name of a region instead of “market;” “valuable to users” rather than “network effects;” and “challenges” instead of “barriers to entry.” Though employees may (mis)use terms innocently, history tells us lawyers and regulators can and will seize upon certain definitions to build their cases. The higher in the company one is, the riskier careless language becomes. Especially sensitive are phrasings that suggest Google dominates any market, intends to “crush” its competition, or makes any choice for its own advantage rather than for the benefit of users. Because, of course, Google would never do that.
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2021
Confirmed: Deloitte Cooperated with the DOJ on HPE Autonomy Case
April 22, 2021
The ghost of Arthur Andersen appeared I think.
Now we know why HPE (formerly HP) stopped making noise about suing auditing firm Deloitte for its role in the decision to buy Autonomy in 2011, which HPE famously came to regret. Forced to write down Autonomy’s value by $8.8 billion in 2012, HPE claimed the software firm and auditors at Deloitte had misrepresented its value. There were questions of whether HPE did its own due diligence before making its purchase, but the firm proceeded to take those it blamed to court. Autonomy’s CFO Sushovan Hussain was sentenced to five years in jail in 2019, and the case against CEO Mike Lynch is (oh so slowly) proceeding. Now The Register reveals, “Deloitte Settled HPE’s Autonomy Lawsuit for $45m Back in 2016 and Agreed to Cooperate with US DOJ.” Writer Gareth Corfield tells us:
“The amount of the settlement is less than 1 per cent of the $5bn for which HPE is pursuing Lynch and Hussain. Although HPE and Deloitte signed a confidentiality agreement over the $45m, its main details were hiding in plain sight inside the last ever accounts filed by Autonomy Corporation Ltd (ACL) before it was merged away into HPE’s corporate structure, becoming known as ACL Netherlands BV. A letter previously sent by HPE’s lawyers to Deloitte in 2014 alleged ‘there is evidence that Deloitte was complicit in aspects of the misstatements in Autonomy’s published information’. That allegation would never be tested in court, though Britain’s accounting regulator eventually found it proven. Public knowledge of the settlement sum also sheds light on why Deloitte was never a co-defendant with Lynch and Hussain in the High Court, despite the auditor being an obvious target for HPE following allegations of false accounting at Autonomy.”
When HPE filed its suit against Lynch and Hussain in 2015, it left open the option to include Deloitte but mysteriously withdrew that potential the next year. Now Corfield confirms that, as suspected, those at Deloitte who had worked on the account signed an agreement to cooperate with the Department of Justice. It specified that Deloitte admitted no wrongdoing or liability, and the firm granted HPE’s lawyers complete access to its Autonomy audit papers and emails. It is suspected that the court would have ruled against Deloitte had it not cooperated, and that by doing so the firm avoided damage to its reputation. Perhaps. But consider—whom do you want as your tax advisor?
Cynthia Murrell, April 22, 2021
Daily Mail, Google, Class, Power, and Incentives
April 20, 2021
The estimable Daily Mail is a newspaper. The owner of the Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and General Trust plc. The big dog at the outfit is The Fourth Viscount Rothermere. Titles are important in England. Crickets the game. “Plumby tones” was crafted to describe the accents some Americans long to have. Dim lights, dark rooms, and hushed tones are also important.
Now the Viscount’s minions are demonstrating that none of their scion are likely to be tagged “googley.” According to the equally estimable Wall Street Journal, the “Daily Mail Owner Files Antitrust Suit Against Google, Citing Royals Coverage.” Gentle reader, you will have to pay Mr. Murdoch to read this interesting story which is completely unbiased and presents the idea that the Google is abusing the Viscount’s ad sales unit.
The core of the story is that Google suppresses Daily Mail content because the Daily Mail is not selling enough Google ads. More popups are needed! The reason is not that those stories are not Savile Row grade stories. The cause of this discrimination of the caste-centric Google and the caste-centric Viscount is quotas.
From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, the antics of two outfits, obsessed with power and getting their way, are jousting over advertising consumed by those not in the rosy glow of the upper crusts.
The irony of the Google caste system (represented by Pichai Sundararajan) and the Fourth Viscount Rothermere is delicious. Didn’t India once view Britain as a glowing source of guidance?
I have no doubt that this dust up is about money, but it is also about power. Google has power right now. The Viscount remembers the power it once had. America! The colonies.
How will this unfold? No chirping merry in this dispute.
Stephen E Arnold, April 20, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
